tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX Business August 31, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. the stage is he set for the third democratic presidential debate with just 10 candidates qualifying for a september showdown. joe biden will finally go head to head with both of his closest challengers, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. the former vice president putting health care back in the spotlight ahead of the septemben ad this week highlighting his continued support for obamacare and taking a swipe at his more progressive rivals who are pushing for a single payer system like medicare for all. >> the fact of the matter is,
health care is personal to me. obamacare is personal to me. when i see the president try to tear it down and others propose to replace it and start over, that's personal to me too. we've got to build on what we did because every american he deserves affordable health care. paul: let's bring in kim strassel, kate o'dell and jason riley. so kate, what do you make of the biden ads? smart politics? >> i think it is smart politics because, look, he's trying to differentiate himself from the rest of the field and show he's not as radical as bernie or some of the other candidates who want to basically overhaul private insurance overnight and eliminate it. now, the policies are smart. the details are less stark than they may appear at first. he is proposing a public option
which would be a major expansion of government health care and probably a weigh station to single payer. paul: it's a question of doing it in stages to get to a government run program or incrementally which is what biden wants or do it in one giant leap, that's the difference? >> right. i mean, bernie's plan is a four year transition which would be -- there's no precedent for attempting a massive government expansion on that level in four years. paul: that public option that biden supports, that didn't pass in 2010. obama tried to get it through. it couldn't even pass a democratic congress. >> it's a testament to how far the politics have shifted over the past 10 years which is an indictment of obamacare, if you think about it, that it didn't solve the problems that it purported to solve in coverage and acassess to care. paul: what does this tell us about the state of the democratic race?
it's pretty early for biden. it's not even labor day, the causcaucuses in iowa are four, e months away. is it too early for biden to be out there? >> i don't think so. the game has sort of changed, when people started paying attention to this race a lot earlier than they did four years ago when we had the 2016 race. so people are more engaged now. i think that ii think that has e front load the calendar in terms of when they decide to engage. biden has been leading the race since he got in. i think this is a real lead that he has including in some of the early voting states. i think it was a very smart ad and i saw the screen shots of obama in there. [ laughter ] paul: how many times, like every shot. >> i think joe biden realizes that has a lot to do with why he is leading this race. his attachment to obama is still a very popular figure among
democrats and him saying to people, wait, these guys want to attack obamacare, they want to attack obamacare. do you want to attack obamacare? and i see where he's going with that. i think it's effective. paul: kim, you wrote a couple weeks ago about elizabeth warren on health care. she has endorsed the bernie sanders medicare for all bill in congress, she said she's for medicare for all. you said if you look at her specifics, she is very fuzzy on the math and the details. explain. >> well, yes, she doesn't have anything. i mean, this is -- remember, her whole catch phrase is she's got a plan for that. but you go to her website, there is no official plan for health care. she has gone out there and said that she's with bernie on this but there are no specifics. and as we all know, health care is quite complicated. there are many different ways you can get to medicare for all and she has said that before. what she's clearly doing is trying for as long as she can to
leave it open as to how long it might take to get there or whether or not this was something that happened over a period of decades. she doesn't want to commit herself until the field clears a little bit and she knows what the sense of this is better because we're seeing lots of democrats shifting their positions here as they realize that medicare for all is a little dicey out there in terms of the sell with the public. paul: it gets rid of private hell insurance. >> exactly. i think the cautionary tale might be kamala harris. it hasn't worked out for her. i think that probably spooked elizabeth warren a little more. it comes down to private insurance. everyone likes medicare for all, single payer, until you tell them you might lose private insurance and then they go whoa. that's what the democrats are dealing with here. paul: elizabeth warren may be caught here a little bit between bernie who is the real deal on medicare for all and has all the he details, bells and whistles and the threat to eliminate
private insurance. when is bernie going to smoke elizabeth warren out here? >> that's a good question. i think that's one thing to watch in the debate, why haven't those two turned on each other sooner is an open question. i think jason's theory on kamala harris is really right. kamala tried to say i'll leave some token role for private insurers in my system and made herself vulnerable to criticism on all sides. i don't think it's going to be easy for warren to get out of medicare for all now, given as you said, she co-sponsored a bill in congress and said she favored eliminating private insurance. so i think she's kind of stuck with what she's supported here. i don't know if she'll be able to walk it back. paul: coming up next, a brand-new round of polls show joe biden maintaining his lead over his democratic rivals and defeating president trump in a general election matchup. but despite those numbers, we'll talk to a strategist who warns that the former vice president is the democratic version of
mitt romney in 2012 and that mitt romney in 2012 and that he's decembe i had no idea why my mouth was constantly dry. it gave me bad breath. it was so embarrassing. now i take biotene dry mouth lozenges whenever i'm on the go, which is all the time. biotene dry mouth lozenges. freshen breath anytime, anywhere. biotene dry mouth lozenges. all right brad, once again i have revolutionized the songwriting process. oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route. obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know?
studying my playbook? yeah, actually. managingaudrey's on it.s? eating right and staying active? on it! audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection... ...in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection,... ...ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar.
for one second here. everyone joining us from around the nation with this is connell mcshane from york. we have two active shooters reported in texas. we have continuing coverage of this breaking story from west texas. steve rogers, a retired detective and former member effort fbi's joint terrorism task force is joining us with his analysis. for those just joining us, steve, let's recap what we know. the police are dealing with a breaking situation in the odessa, midland area of effectsf texas where a shooter was reported on interstate 20.
since then the update is multiple gunshot victims were reported in the area after one of the suspects is said to have stole and mail truck in odessa. first video of the situation is coming in. the right side of your screen there. we'll try to decipher what that is. we mix it in with a map of the area on the left side of the screen. we are offering more video from those who witnessed the incident. again for those just joining us, recap what you would be doing having your experience as the authorities deal with this unfolding incident. >> make sure all of the assets possible both on the ground and in the air are deployed. that's critically important with daylight still in our favor. secondly, information from
people very important. we find out many times after the incident that there was information maybe weeks before that were posted on social media platforms by these individuals who commit these acts. if anybody saw anything in a chat room or sooner anything posted they need to contact police immediately. these two separate incidents, is it a coincidence? i think not. connell, stay tuned for continuing coverage of this breaking story out of west texas. i'm connell mcshane reporting in newly the centrists are out t because they couldn't get support among the democrat primaries. it's the left-leaning that met all the criteria. at some point, those candidates are also going to be leaving the campaign and those votes are
going to start going to other left-leaning candidates. so i think biden is pretty stable where he is and he might drop a little bit but at some point there's going to be a biden versus somebody and when that happens, i think the somebody's in a better position than biden in a democrat primary. paul: from 2012, it was ultimately romney versus santorum and romney won. the biden in that race won. he lost the general election but he won the primary. why couldn't biden do the same thing near. >> there's a little bit of a difference. the wild card is does the left come together and rally behind a single candidate. if you have four or five left candidates and biden is the only one there, it's very possible joe biden will be the nominee. the second big difference is how money is raised. mitt romney had big super pacs, big donors.
the other candidates had small dollar donors. small dollars has become the most important way to raise money. biden is not a particularly good small dollar donor. elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, they're much better. as time goes on, i think they might have a financial advantage over biden. paul: on the point about electability, though, let me push back again because you have electability in the polling that i've seen, the democratic primary voters say that is their number one concern and, why, because they really, really, really don't like donald trump. so could that issue this time be the dominant issue and even though there's this energy on the left you talk about, maybe work in biden's favor? >> well, it's certainly working in his favor right now. he's a name. he has a known entity. and people think well, i think he could win. but the problem is, he's already starting to move left on some issues, like the hyde amendment, which a lot of pro choice people don't like their tax dollars
going to pay for abortions. people in rust belt states, for example, blue collar conservatives, who are often democrats who always have liked biden see now that he's shifting to the left. not only is he not looking like as strong candidate when it comes to his own personality, he's starting to feel like in the democrat primary he has to move to the left and the more he moves to the left, it makes it harder for him to be competitive effectively in the general election. paul: if you're sitting in the trump campaign and wondering who you're running against, who would do you really fear? if you don't fear biden, who do you worry about? >> in fairness, what i learned with trump and his campaign, they don't think that way and fear anybody. if i look at the field right now, i think probably the most likely democrat to end up being their candidate is elizabeth warren. but i also think she comes with a whole host of problems. when we get to the general
election and we're talking about medicare for all, we're talking about green new deal, all these things that are going to cost hard working americans jobs and taxes and take away health care bebenefits they have now, i thik that work's to the president's favor. paul: thanks for coming in. that's going to be fascinating to watch. >> looking forward to it. paul: when we come back, james comey claims vindication after the justice department declines to prosecute the former fbi director for his handling of memos that detailed his conversations with president trump. what the inspector general's report really says, next. i can't believe it. that sophie opened up a wormhole through time?
(speaking japanese) where am i? (woman speaking french) are you crazy/nuts? cyclist: pip! pip! (woman speaking french) i'm here, look at me. it's completely your fault. (man speaking french) ok? it's me. it's my fault? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. (pterodactyl screech) believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home.
but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.
paul: the justice department's inspector general releasing a report this week that says form other fbi director james comey violated fbi policies in his handling of memos documenting private conversations he had with president trump. the doj watchdog says comey broke fbi rules when he gave a memo containing unclassified information to a friend with instructions to share the contents with a reporter. the ig says comey failed to notify the fbi after he had been fired that he had retained some of the memos in a safe at home. the justice department has said it won't prosecute him for the violations and on thursday comey took to twitter to claim vindication saying, quote, doj ig found no evidence that comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media. i don't need a public apology from those who defamed me but a quick message with a sorry we lied about you would be nice. we're back with kim strassel,
jason riley and wall street journal editorial board member allysia findley. what do you think about comey's claims of vindication? >> i think he's going to be waiting a long time for an apology from most of america. only jim comey could turn a report that was this devastating into some sort of vindication. i think the ig did two important things here. one, he skewered this absurd claim that comey made that memos he took of official moments with the president were personal and therefore his to keep and leak. obviously, in doing so he did break any number of rules and regulations in his own employment agreement. the other important thing that the ig did was skewer this notion that comey was justified in doing this. pointing out that we have rules for a reason. you do not get to run the fbi on the basis of personal conviction
and that even jim comey has to be expected to follow all those regulations. paul: kim, he said that the ig's report said the motivation that comey had here was self-serving. he wanted to get donald trump. he wanted to get an appointment of a special counsel. so that was for his own -- and yet comey couched it in a sort of grander vision of oh, i care deeply about the fbi, i care deeply about the country. but he was also -- he was really looking out for number one. >> yeah. and that was the other really great thing to see in this report. it was very well-done in that it's very neutrally written, straightforward, but it simply calls out comey on this fiction, he sort of pedaled to the nation for two years now that hes was operating in everyone's best behalf. he was actually operating to get his own, as the ig pointed out, his own ambitions achieved and
has also pointing out how much this has hurt and undermines the fbi as well. paul: called it a -- the ig called it a dangerous example for 35,000 other employees. if you can say you're the director, look, i did this because i have a higher duty, boy, and i can break the rules, that's dangerous, this is an enforcement agency with enormous police power. >> now we know where the behavior of people like peter strzok and andrew mccabe, the rock started at the very top under jim comey. i think the vindication here belongs to the president for firing jim comey, clearly the right thing to do. i wish he had done it earlier. you don't want an fbi director with jim comey's situational ethics. who saw his job as to undermine the presidency which is what he was trying to do. i wish we could bill comey for the mueller report. paul: what about the argument from some of the right which is
saying bill barr blew it because he didn't prosecute comey here, he decided not to prosecute him and, therefore, he abdi kateed and we can't hold comey accountable. do you agree with that? >> i think it's a close call. there isn't any clear evidence that he violated the law. he violated fbi agency rules. i think if he were to prosecute the case, i think that would have probably been more divisive, underminor trust in the fbi and the government. paul: he's lucky he didn't have jim comey as his prosecutor, jim comey. what are we going to do next here? what are we looking for next? from the ig. >> this is definitely a sign that the ig is wrapping things up. i think it was really notable that he took the time to actually issue a report as long as this on just one aspect of comey's behavior. i think that suggests to us that when he does release his report,
which i'm hearing is going to be in the next couple of weeks, his bigger reports looking at the fbi's broader counter intelligence investigation and the fisa process, that it is going to be very comprehensive and that we can expect that nobody just because they have a title or held an important rank or position is going to be spared from a lot of scrutiny. paul: this will involve looking into the fisa court, the warrants against the trump campaign ad vicar, ca carter pa. tensions in the middle east escalate as the israel, iran shadow war breaks out into the open. this was me six years ago... and this is me now! i got liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. and so can you!
updates on hurricane dorian. ♪ ♪ paul: middle east tensions ratcheting up with israel carrying out a series of strikes against iran's proxies in iraq, syria and lebanon in just one 18-hour period last weekend. an israeli airstrike killed two iranian-trained fighters in syria, a drone set off a blast near a hezbollah office in the suburbs of beirut, and an airstrike near the syrian border in iraq killed a commander of an iran-backed militia. the attacks mark an escalation in the shadow war between iran and israel with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu tweeting, quote: iran has no immunity anywhere. our forces operate in every sector against the iranian
aggression. if someone rises up to kill you, kill him first. jonathan spire is a journalist and middle east analyst. he directs the middle east center for reporting and analysis. welcome, mr. spire. good to have you here. so you wrote this week that the israel/iran war is already underway. what's happening on the ground? >> well, as you were describing a moment ago, what's happening on the ground is an ongoing israeli campaign to attempt to undermine and prevent what i would describe or what is often described as the entrenchment and consolidation by the iranians on a military infrastructure in syria, lebanon and iraq. and in a sense, the attempt by the iranians to consolidate their own de facto control of a kind of contiguous line of territory through iraq, through syria, through lebanon and to
israel. that's been going on for a while. in syria there's certainly been -- we know of hundreds of israeli operations, it's now clear it's expanded to iraq and to lebanon. paul: so how many times a week are they hitting, are the airstrikes going into iraq? and can that continue? can the israelis keep doing that without some response from iraq? >> right. well, we know so far of four separate incidents, two in july, two in august. the last one august 20th. israel, of course, doesn't claim responsibility for these actions, but it looks pretty likely, you know? israel's the only serious candidate for responsibility. paul: right. >> i would say that iraq itself, the iraqi government is very much divided on this because, of course, israel is not hitting the iraqi security forces. israel is hitting the popular mobilization units, that's shia militia supported by iran inside the country. so i think, you know, the iraqi
government will probably continue to issue criticism and not do a great deal more. but the issue is will the iranians themselves who, of course, control those militias seek to carry out a response at a time of their choosing. and with regard to that, the answer is almost certainly yes, almost certainly the iranians are already attempting to put together such a response. and, indeed, we saw just last week the israeli action against the operatives in southwest syria, you know, was an israeli sort of foiling of an iranian attempt to launch, we think, killer drones into israel, presumably to hit either civilian or military targets. so they're already trying to respond, and part of the operation for israel is not only to attack, but also to prevent the attempt by the iranians to react and respond. paul: i wonder if, in fact, here the iranians don't have the strategic advantage, and here's why i say that. they're entrenching consistently day by day by day. israel can attack periodically and set them back, but ultimately, as long as the iranians are determined and as
long as its proxies willing to take some casualties, how can israel really stop that without a full scale escalation? >> yeah. well, i think that's a very good point. and that, in a way, is the central question mark which i've written about and others have written about too hanging over this strategy. israel is clearly superior to the iranians, to iran in two key areas. one is in terms of its intelligence coverage over remember on -- lebanon, syria ad iraq. and the second is its ability in air power. israel is able to kind of lop off the low hanging fruits, so to speak, of the iranian project whenever they get too close to looking really dangerous. for example, it appears that israel has prevented an iranian attempt to equip their missiles in lebanon with precision-guided devices. it'll turn them into much more dangerous missiles that would have an accuracy radius of around 10 meters.
israel, it a appears, has prevented that. but when it comes to the broader iranian project of, in a certain sense, trying to hollow out those systems and societies in iraq, syria and lebanon and replace them with iran-controlled power structures, yeah, it's very hard to see how that could be prevented by air warfare. i think, frankly, it cannot be. which means what we're looking at is the likelihood of continued iranian attempts to consolidate, probably successful in all three countries, and then as you said, periodic israeli actions to stop the danger from growing too close and too intent. it's a version of what's happening in gaza which we describe in israel, of course, as mowing the grass. every so often israel goes in to hit hamas and deter them, written on a far larger canvas. paul: can the u.s. do much to help israel other than say that we're, we have their back? >> i think so. i think -- look, i think the
u.s. campaign of maximum economic pressure on iran is, you know, a hugely helpful additional element in all this because, of course, as the pressure continues to bite, you know, the likelihood or the hope at least is that it becomes more difficult for iran to maintain these overseas commitment and that then will perhaps produce economic pressure at home on the regime. that's certainly very welcome. but clearly, the u.s. does not wish to enter, it looks like at least, to joining the military effort. and the saudis doing what they're doing down in yemen, but the saudis are much weaker and more fragile. israel is kind of on its own on the military level of this contest. paul: jonathan spier, thanks so much for your reporting. still ahead, the s.a.t. changes its answer. the college board drops its controversy plan to add a diversity score to the high stakes test. ♪
with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro.
we're changing what's possible. for instance, we know how your customers shop. and what they've already purchased. like this lamp. and we use those insights to show you what they might consider buying next. mid-century modern, nice. that way, you can keep sending them offers for the perfect products. and that keeps them coming back. how's that for changing what's possible?
♪ ♪ >> you're -- to give you a sense of what you've achieved, but the college board's not to score diversity. >> david coleman explaining his decision to drop a controversial plan to end a diversity plan on the is s.a.t., the score would have taken into account such factors as the crime rate and housing values in a student's neighborhood, parents' median income and education and the free lunch rate at the high school they attend. critics have ingreecingly attacked -- ingreecingly attacked the s.a.t. with a growing number of schools going test optional in recent years. we're back with jason reilly, allysia finley and kate bachelor to dell. so, jason, was the s.a.t. a decision a good one? >> yes, i think it was, paul. the average white s.a.t. score
in this country is about 170 points higher than the average black s.a.t. test score. and this was initially an effort to do manager about that. -- something about that. adversity was basically a proxy for race. this was a back door attempt at racial preferences, i think -- paul: isn't the test biased against african-americans? >> no, i don't think it's biased against african-americans. i think what we need to focus on is preparing kids to do a better job for the test. not change the test or change the standard for getting into college. the problem here is trying to get kids that aren't qualified to do the work or can't handle the work into college. you're not doing them any favors. you're just going to see higher dropout rates among these groups. we've seen in the past. the real hard work is going to be done in the k-12 system getting these kids prepared to take the test. paul: why do you think the college board changed its mind? >> i think it's a huge public blowback among people for a
varian -- from a variety of backgrounds. one, this was basically reaffirming the belief that one's success and achievement is a product of one's circumstance, that if you're low income or poor, then you're, you know, we need to handicap that. paul: and you're doomed forever to be that unless we lift you up. >> exactly. and, obviously, among the upper middle class, more affluent, it would have also punished if you're a middle class parent and you want to send your kid to a better school, move to a better neighborhood, it would punish those folks. paul: kate, is this decision going to help reduce the cynicism so many of us have about that mystery black box called college admissions? >> well, i think -- i do think it is, it's good for the college boards' value proposition, because i do think going to start to see this capital flight to measures as it gets harder to
tell why kids are getting into college. for instance, grades have been inflated to the point of meaninglessness, and so they're not a way to measure candidates against each other. so i think the college board maintaining this as close to an objective measure as they can. it's not perfect. of course you can study for the test and pay for good tutors, but you see in college class profiles that they're letting in kids with a pretty broad range of s.a.t. scores which means they're looking at other factors like adversity, the high schools they came from. i think the s.a.t. is right to stay in the lane of offering specific, close to objective, imperfect test. paul: jason, let's turn to new york city that you wrote about for us there, focusing on the chancellor of the school system, superintendent, rather, getting rid of gifted and talented programs because he said it hurt lower income students, and he's already trying to level the playing field how you can get into certain high schools. >> right.
again, this obsession with diversity for its own sake, this obsession with racial balance in schools, when i think the real focus should be on creating enough quality schools to meet the needs for them. we have high quality public school models in new york city that the mayor refuses to replicate. those are charter schools, public charter schools. they do an excellent job of getting kids into these gifted and talented programs, but he has no interest in replicating those models because the teachers' unions are opposed to charter schools a because many of the teachers aren't unionized. paul: and the attack on charters continues across the country, california, new york. the democratic party's really turned hard, elements of it, against charters. >> i think that's right. several years ago you saw arne duncan who was the education secretary in the obama administration, even president obama, you know, come out really support charters, and now, you know, the moderate democrats are much more humid on this issue.
you don't have a strong voice in the democratic party for this even though most polls show a large majority of hispanics and blacks support charters. paul: do you see any way that turns back, jason? >> it's going to be tough. in 2018 a lot of governors, a lot of democratic state legislatures were created and, again, the unions -- we see more teacher strikes around the country. the school reform movement really has its work cut out. paul: all right, thank you. when we come back, an oklahoma judge to orders johnson & johnson to pay $572 million for its role in the opioid epidemic. why the ruling could have far larger and more dangerous consequences. brad, i've got an idea for a song. nationwide has this app. you can pay your bills, even start an auto claim. so what i was thinking... let me guess. ♪ start a claim right from your app. ♪ have you been looking in my notes? ♪
absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and snoring? no problem... and done. so you can really promise better sleep. not promise. prove. and now, all beds are on sale! it's the last chance to save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 36-months. ends labor day.
week ordered johnson & johnson to pay $572 million for its role in the opioid crisis, siding with state attorney general mike hunter who claimed that the drugmaker aggressively marketed opioids to doctors while repeatedly downplaying the risks of addiction. those sales practice, the state argued, led to an oversupply of the painkillers and created a public nuisance. a legal argument and ruling that could have far-reaching and maybe dangerous consequences. we're back with our panel. allysia, you wrote critically about this ruling, why? >> for one, johnson & johnson's products only make up 1% of the market in oklahoma and nationally. they produced a crush-resistant pill as well as a fentanyl patch. these are not things, these are not products that can be easily abused by, you know, people using drugs. and first of all, they also have to be prescribed by doctors,
they have to be provided by government-licensed pharmacies. they were not, the a.g. was not able to show that johnson & johnson did anything illegal, let alone criminal here. paul: so did he even try to show what you would call a line of causation from their manufacturer, distribution, marketing to doctors and then on to patients that you would normally have to establish for product liability? >> no. they basically dodged around most product liability by using this, quote-unquote, public nuisance law, by saying this created a public nuisance. usually public nuisance relates to property -- paul: you're playing your music too loud. >> yeah. maybe pollution. but now what you're seeing is a.g.s have been trying to expand liability under public nuisance laws to including climate change because it's much easier to get a much bigger
damage verdict. paul: kim, i think a lot of people looking at this say, you know what? this opioid scourging is really horrible, it's done tremendous damage to the country, to the social fabric, and you know what? somebody's got to pay. and the deep pockets are there, so they gotta pay. >> well, they're right in the first part in that the opioid epidemic is a real problem, and it is causing great devastation, and in particular certain areas of the country. but looking for a scapegoat is not the way to actually solve this problem. that's one of the other issues with this lawsuit and litigation is that, you know, it overlooks the fact that the vast majority of the opioid decision comes down -- addition comes down to illegal drugs which, obviously, is not the case with what johnson and johnson is prescribing. yeah, there's a lot of deep pockets here, but i think people should be more angry that you have, in my mind, attorney generals like mr. hunter who
aren't doing -- they're misdirecting the worry out there, and then also there's a benefit for them, right? they get these deep pockets, and it provides a lot of money for the state government that they're suing on behalf of. paul: yeah, kate, it doesn't look like any individual patients are really going to benefit here, much of the money will go into state coffers and, of course, the trial lawyers who brought this public nuisance theory to mr. hunter are going to get a big bundle of cash. so the question is who benefits? >> right. i think the plaintiffs' lawyers are the prime beneficiary here, and i think that's really sad given, from what you said, the public is looking for more accountability here. i think one with thing that's interesting about this is the number of prescriptions for opioids has been falling since 2010, but the overdose numbers have not fallen in tandem as you would expect. and i think that's because as kim alluded to, it's moved on to a follow-on problem of fentanyl,
of heroin, of even meth and other drugs that people are using and overdosing on. so i think it's one of those cases where public is looking for someone to blame, but it's a large, intractable social problem with many authors. paul: allysia, do you think j&j is going to appeal here, do you think it should keep fighting on? >> well, i do think it should keep fighting on all the way to the u.s. supreme court if necessary in order to establish some kind of precedent perhaps for other cases. there are 2,000 other cases pending in a multi-district litigation in ohio. squash these public nuisance claims which are very dubious. paul: because they've excessive and, essentially, they break the law. >> yes. i mean, they abuse it. paul: okay. all right, thank you. we have to take one more break. we have to take one more break.
patients that i see that complain we have to take one more break. about dry mouth. they feel that they have to drink a lot of water. medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. [heartbeat]
this is the family who wanted to connect... to go where they could explore and experience adventure in unexpected places... ♪ who were inspired by different cultures ♪ and found that the past can create new memories... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. for everywhere you go, expedia has everything you need, all in one place.
now you can, with shipsticks.com! no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks. pete: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off. >> so this summer is the tenth
anniversary of the founding of the tea party movement which apparently means most of the left and the media establishments to rewrite history, by claiming the tee party was fund men -- tea party was fundamentally rooted in racism by a new black president. we're old enough to have covered this this was a reaction to a republican party and the over aggressive policies. pete: allysia. >> this is a hit to andrew luck who announced he was retiring this year after seven seasons. he suffered a lacerated kidney, a shoulder tear, torn abdomen, a number of injuries and he finally decided money isn't worth it. my health comes first. i think this sets a good example. pete: all right. kate. >> paul, my miss is to cnn for subjecting us all to a seven
hour townhall on climate change coming up. ostensibly the point is cry mate change is so serious it needs to be dealt with in details. we should assume voters are busy people so let's try to give them the facts a on a more densed basis -- more condensed basis. pete: i'm going to assign you to watch every minute of those. jason. >> this is a hit for david coke, the businessman who died recently at the age of 79. he's best known for political giving. he gave more money to the arts and medical research than he gave to politics. what he did give to politics was based on principle. pete: what's wrong with giving away your money to do that. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and for all